For much of his 21 years in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul has been a party of one.

The Lake Jackson Republican's libertarian sensibilities make him a cult figure to some and a painful thorn in the side to others, including members of his own party. In retaliation for prizing ideology over party, he often was passed over by the GOP hierarchy for plum posts.

Next year, however, looks different for the Paul family.

Rand Paul, one of five children of Ron and Carol Paul, will share his father's Virginia condominium  after winning an election of his own. In addition to a change of clothing, he will bring a tea party agenda of deficit reduction and limited government that is remarkably similar to the ideas that Ron Paul has been espousing for decades.

That shouldn't be much of a surprise. After all, Rand Paul grew up watching his father on the political stage.

In 1976, 13-year-old Rand paid rapt attention as a group of insurgent conservatives fought on the floor of the Republican National Convention to replace President Gerald Ford with Ronald Reagan on the party's ticket. One of the foot soldiers in the Reagan revolution - unsuccessful that bicentennial summer but triumphant four years later - was his father, then a freshman congressman from Texas and one of only four GOP lawmakers with the temerity to endorse Reagan.

"Seeing him stand up for someone he believed in, not just doing whatever the establishment wanted him to, meant a lot to me," Rand Paul said in an interview.

The reasons the "nook and cranny" people are trying to kill us have nothing to do with our looking for them.

They want to kill us anyway.

Frankly, if you're willing to tell those people you're willing to take the first hit I suppose it's OK that we're not out there trying to find them first.

I mean, like why should I care what happens to you? Maybe we can get a big arrow or something and float it over your house on a blimp ~ just aim it down and say "Hey, terrorist Nut Balls, here's your boy ~ do it!"

I’m one of those who could have been described as one of those “neocon types” but ultimately you have to evaluate what you can accomplish, and what the costs are, and what you can afford, and as you said so well, “we are broke”

The reasons the "nook and cranny" people are trying to kill us have nothing to do with our looking for them. They want to kill us anyway.

The evidence is against you. Study after study, most notably by Robert Pape, in his careful statistical study, Dying to Win, have shown that the primary motivations for suicide attacks throughout the world are foreign occupation. You don't believe Pape? Well then, will you believe Paul Wolfowitz? Back in 2003, Wolfowitz contended (shades of Ron Paul!) that the occupation of the Arabian penninsula was a leading recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Here is what he said:

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

In other words, even Wolfowitz seems to agree that they hate us because we're over there.

Views such as:
1. Inferring our policies were the cause for 9-11?
2. Being against earmarks.. before he takes them?
3. That repeal of DADT is a good idea?
4. Defending Julian Assange?
5. Opposing censure for Charlie Rangel?
6. Opposing forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research?
7. Opposition to the death penalty at state and federal level?
8. Supporting a cutoff of all aid to Israel?
9. Surrendering in both the Iraq and Afghan wars?

THOSE views?

Ron Paul may have some good points on fiscal matters, but outside that lane, he borders on being in the nutcase zone. And if Rand indeed shares those views, Kentucky made a mistake by electing him.

17
posted on 01/03/2011 7:38:02 AM PST
by ScottinVA
(The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)

Continuting down this course means we are funding two militaries; ours and China’s through debt payments.

Now, I’ve heard of funding both sides before, but it looks like for WW3 we might just wind up doing it.

Surrender? To whom? There is no one whom to surrender. There is no one to defeat us. We just end up spending vast sums to play deset whack-amole. 10 years. One trillion plus. 5,000 plus American lives lost. We’ve done it to ourselves. And to what end?

Islam.. If we lose the WOT it will not be because of the islamic hoards of stone age goat herders in sandals with rifles and a hatred for the western culture defeated us. It will be because of yellow cut and run liberals and paultards who prefer we just stick our heads in the sand and allow the islamic hoards to fester and plunder the worlds resources for profit to buy arms to use against us and supply terrorists safe haven and provide resources to use against us.

The problem will not go away if we just ignore it.. That only emboldens and encourages them.

25
posted on 01/03/2011 7:56:08 AM PST
by DirtyHarryY2K
(The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)

I agree with special forces doing their thing wherever these scumbags are, but to put hundreds of thousands of troops is a waste of lives, money, resources, and effort IMHO.

I agree with what you're saying here and don't get me wrong.... we should've been more forceful and less reliant on nationbuilding in both engagements. But the problem I have with Ron Paul is his wanting to eschew ALL foreign engagements without a formal declaration of war. In a more classic, i.e., nation vs. nation, sense that would be advisable... but against nonstate actors like al-Qaeda, it doesn't apply.

29
posted on 01/03/2011 8:05:53 AM PST
by ScottinVA
(The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)

Seems to me like its the liberals and paultard libertarians who defend the so called “constitutional rights” of muslims to practice their “murder cult” in this country. Ron Paul (and all leftists) totally support the victory mosque at GZ and their murder cult false “religion”..

31
posted on 01/03/2011 8:08:13 AM PST
by DirtyHarryY2K
(The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)

"But the problem I have with Ron Paul is his wanting to eschew ALL foreign engagements without a formal declaration of war. In a more classic, i.e., nation vs. nation, sense that would be advisable... but against nonstate actors like al-Qaeda, it doesn't apply. "

Two points. 1] Follow the Constitution and declare war - no workarounds. We bomb nations, don't we? 2] Al Queda is less than 100 people. We are now on mission creep (make that gallop) broke and borrowing money from China.

Since you are a newbie here you may not be aware of this policy statement.

To all antiwar moonbats, Paulistas included:

Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.

In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.

Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.

When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!

If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!

I note that you singled out Israel. Why? At least be honest and note that Paul wants to "cut off" aid to the Arabs as well.

Paul was NEVER agaisnt earmarks. Earmarks, as Paul points out, do not translate into spending increases. The money is already appropriated. It is a question of whether the money will be earmarked at the discretion of Obama or Congress. Paul says it should be Congress. Paul doesns't want to "surrender" in Afghanistan and Iraq. He merely wants to let Karzai and the other corrupt welfare bums stand on their own two feet. The censure of Rangel was hypocrisy since most other House members are equally corrupt.

As you other points, I agree entirely with Ron Paul. Unlike some on this forum, Paul did't stop defending Assange after he releaed CLASSIFIED memos which exposed climategate.

Look, I follow the news closely. We have not marched in and occupied any Gulf nation or nation on the peninsula. Just hasn't happened.

Sorry, but your dead wrong on that point. I found this in this in two minutes searching:

As of September 2002 about 2,000 American soldiers were stationed at Al Udeid, down from a peak of 4,000 during the war in Afghanistan. The United States kept two dozen KC-135 Stratotankers and KC-10A Extenders at the base for in-flight refueling of fighter jets and bombers over Afghanistan. And though the number of American soldiers on the base had fallen by half since the peak of the Afghan campaign, to about 2,200, the base had been expanded over the previous six months to accommodate up to 10,000 troops and 120 aircraft.

Qatar agreed to host pre-positioned equipment for an Army brigade, and in 1996 it hosted an air expeditionary force consisting of 30 fighters and four tankers. Air Force pre-positioning was facilitated by the construction of what may be the premier air base in the Gulf at Al-Udeid. The Qatari philosophy behind construction was likened to "build it and they will come" -- obtain the best defense by providing the best facilities for US and coalition forces. The Al-Udeid Air Base was built at a cost of more than a billion dollars. Its runway measures 15,000 long -- the longest in the Gulf. The facility's shelters can accommodate nearly a hundred aircraft, rather more than needed by the Qatari Air Force, which has only a dozen fighters. The facility is owned and operated by the Qatari armed forces.

In 1999, Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad, reportedly told US officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000 US servicemen permanently stationed at Al Udeid.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

As far as I am concerned, the shortcomings of Ron and Rand are grossly outweighed by the good they bring to the table.

What good things do they bring to the table? Cut and run has been in Washington for how many years? Can you name ONE thing he has ever accomplished? Except accept as many earmarks as possible, the ones he SAYS he is against.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.